U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

79-659 PS 2002

H.R. 3937, H.R. 4882, H.R. 4883,

H.R. 4966, AND OVERSIGHT

HEARING ON THE NATIONAL

COASTAL AND OCEAN SERVICE AUTHORIZATION ACT;

THE NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE AUTHORIZATION ACT; AND THE NATIONAL

OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC

RESEARCH SERVICE AUTHORIZATION ACT.

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES CONSERVATION,

WILDLIFE AND OCEANS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

May 16, 2002

Serial No. 107-118

Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house

(or

Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov

(II)

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah, Chairman

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Ranking Democrat Member

Don Young, Alaska,

Vice Chairman

W.J. ‘‘Billy’’ Tauzin, Louisiana

Jim Saxton, New Jersey

Elton Gallegly, California

John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee

Joel Hefley, Colorado

Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland

Ken Calvert, California

Scott McInnis, Colorado

Richard W. Pombo, California

Barbara Cubin, Wyoming

George Radanovich, California

Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Carolina

Mac Thornberry, Texas

Chris Cannon, Utah

John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania

Bob Schaffer, Colorado

Jim Gibbons, Nevada

Mark E. Souder, Indiana

Greg Walden, Oregon

Michael K. Simpson, Idaho

Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado

J.D. Hayworth, Arizona

C.L. ‘‘Butch’’ Otter, Idaho

Tom Osborne, Nebraska

Jeff Flake, Arizona

Dennis R. Rehberg, Montana

George Miller, California

Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan

Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Samoa

Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii

Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas

Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey

Calvin M. Dooley, California

Robert A. Underwood, Guam

Adam Smith, Washington

Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Islands

Ron Kind, Wisconsin

Jay Inslee, Washington

Grace F. Napolitano, California

Tom Udall, New Mexico

Mark Udall, Colorado

Rush D. Holt, New Jersey

James P. McGovern, Massachusetts

Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico

Hilda L. Solis, California

Brad Carson, Oklahoma

Betty McCollum, Minnesota

Tim Stewart, Chief of Staff

Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel/Deputy Chief of Staff

Steven T. Petersen, Deputy Chief Counsel

Michael S. Twinchek, Chief Clerk

James H. Zoia, Democrat Staff Director

Jeffrey P. Petrich, Democrat Chief Counsel

SUBCOMMITTE ON FISHERIES CONSERVATION, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland, Chairman

ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam, Ranking Democrat Member

Don Young, Alaska

W.J. ‘‘Billy’’ Tauzin, Louisiana

Jim Saxton, New Jersey,

Vice Chairman

Richard W. Pombo, California

Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Carolina

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Samoa

Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii

Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas

Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey

(III)

CONTENTS

Page

Hearing held on May 16, 2002 ............................................................................... 1

Statement of Members:

Gilchrest, Hon. Wayne T., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Maryland ................................................................................................... 1

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 2

Hunter, Hon. Duncan, a Representative in Congress from the State of

California ....................................................................................................... 4

Prepared statement on H.R. 3937 ........................................................... 5

Pallone, Hon. Frank, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State

of New Jersey, Prepared statement of ........................................................ 17

Saxton, Hon. Jim, a Representative in Congress from the State of New

Jersey, Prepared statement of ..................................................................... 19

Underwood, Hon. Robert A., a Delegate in Congress from Guam,

Prepared statement of .................................................................................. 16

Statement of Witnesses:

Dokter, Frank, President, Walter’s Camp, Inc. .............................................. 29

Prepared statement on H.R. 3937 ........................................................... 30

Ellis, Mitchell R., Chief, Branch of Wildlife Resources, National Wildlife

Refuge System, Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the

Interior ........................................................................................................... 27

Prepared statement on H.R. 3937 ........................................................... 28

Gudes, Scott, Deputy Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere/

Administrator, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S.

Department of Commerce ............................................................................. 2

Prepared statement on NOAA Discussion Draft Bills ........................... 8

(1)

LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 3937, A BILL

TO REVOKE A PUBLIC LAND ORDER WITH

RESPECT TO CERTAIN PROPERTY ERRONEOUSLY INCLUDED IN THE CIBOLA NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE IN CALIFORNIA;

H.R. 4882, THE NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION COMMISSIONED OFFICERS ACT OF 2002; H.R. 4883,

THE HYDROGRAPHIC SERVICES IMPROVEMENT ACT AMENDMENTS OF 2002; H.R. 4966,

THE NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION AUTHORIZATION

ACT; AND OVERSIGHT HEARING ON THE

NATIONAL COASTAL AND OCEAN SERVICE

AUTHORIZATION ACT; THE NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE AUTHORIZATION

ACT; AND THE NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH SERVICE AUTHORIZATION ACT.

Thursday, May 16, 2002

U.S. House of Representatives

Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans

Committee on Resources

Washington, DC

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:05 p.m., in room

1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Wayne T. Gilchrest

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE WAYNE T. GILCHREST, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF

MARYLAND

Mr. GILCHREST. Good afternoon, everyone. The Committee will

come to order. When Mr. Hunter comes in, we will probably—the

order of the hearing was going to be Mr. Hunter and the issue

dealing with California. Then we were going to go to the NOAA

2

programs, but Mr. Hunter has been delayed, so we will start with

you, Scott, and I will just submit my statement for the record and

say that we look forward to your testimony, the myriad of programs that NOAA has under its jurisdiction. We are offering a legislative draft to sort of tighten that up a little bit and we would

like your response to that as we move this through the process. We

appreciate your attendance here this afternoon. I tried to put the

word honorable in front of your name, but I guess I didn’t get here

in time.

Mr. GUDES. I saw a letter like that once.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thanks for coming this afternoon, Scott.

Statement of The Honorable Wayne T. Gilchrest, Chairman,

Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans

Today we will be hearing from witnesses regarding legislation to authorize

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration programs, and H.R. 3937, a bill

to resolve a boundary dispute involving the Cibola National Wildlife Refuge.

The House Resources Committee has jurisdiction over many National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) programs, including the agency’s navigation

services, fishery and coastal zone management, and oceanography programs. Some

of these programs are authorized under program specific statutes, for instance, the

National Marine Sanctuaries Act and the Magnuson–Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act. Other programs rely on more general authorizations. No

comprehensive authorization for these programs has been enacted since 1992. The

1992 authorizations have expired and administrative reorganization plan under

which the agency was established in 1970 has become outdated.

The NOAA bills before the subcommittee today authorize agency programs under

the jurisdiction of the Resources Committee that do not have other specific authorizations; reauthorize the Hydrographic Services Improvement Act; and update the

statutory framework for NOAA’s administrative structure, and for the NOAA Commissioned Officers Corps. I look forward to hearing the agency’s views on this draft.

The second part of our hearing is on H. R. 3937, a bill introduced by our colleague

Duncan Hunter of California to resolve a boundary dispute involving the Cibola

National Wildlife Refuge. This refuge was created to conserve migratory waterfowl

and a variety of different types of habitat along the lower Colorado River.

Specifically, H. R. 3937 will revoke a small portion of the Public Land Order that

originally created Cibola in 1964. While the refuge is more than 17,000 acres, there

is a small component of the refuge known as ‘‘Walter’s Camp’’. This camp has provided recreational opportunities for thousands of visitors for over forty years. The

concessionaire who operates this camp has consistently obtained the necessary concession permits from the Bureau of Land Management. The fundamental goals of

this legislation are to remove 140 acres of land from the refuge, to end the confusion

as to whom should have title to this property and to reaffirm that the management

of the concession is the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management. It is my

understanding that both agencies strongly support this long overdue modification.

STATEMENT OF SCOTT GUDES, DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY

FOR OCEANS AND ATMOSPHERE/ADMINISTRATOR,

NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION,

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Mr. GUDES. On behalf of Vice Admiral Conrad Lautenbacher and

the 12,500 men and women at NOAA working across the country,

I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the Subcommittee for inviting me to speak today on the draft legislation that reauthorizes

many of NOAA’s ocean and coastal programs, in fact a good part

of the agency. And, as always, Mr. Chairman, I would just like to

thank you again, the Subcommittee, your staff, John Rayfield,

Dave Jansen, for your very, very strong support of NOAA and our

programs. It is something that I think those men and women

3

across the country are very aware of and very appreciative and the

expertise that is here on this Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, as you can appreciate, there are 6, I think, separate bills that are before the Subcommittee today and I will speak

to each briefly. But before I do that, I would like to mention 2 organizational and programmatic reviews of NOAA that are ongoing.

First, coming to NOAA, our new administrator, Vice Admiral

Conrad Lautenbacher, called for a bottom-up fundamental review

of NOAA programs to be conducted by the agency called the NOAA

Program Review, to take a look at our strengths and opportunities

for improvement. He actually started off this process in a noble

way by going out to all NOAA employees, asking them for their

ideas, and then he asked me to put together a group of 16 NOAA

executives that represented every part of the agency to work over

3 months and take a look at these different suggestions, add some

of our own. We are really at a point where we are about to report

back to the administrator or what we call the ‘‘NOAA Executive

Council,’’ which represents the senior leadership, and then they

will decide which ideas have merit and go forward and go to Commerce leadership, and then we would like to come back through

OMB and to you, to show you the results or what we think would

make good ideas to build a better NOAA. This is about where

NOAA should be to remain the premier science and service and

stewardship agency in 5 years and in 10 years and in 20 years to

be what we really can be and continue to be as good as we want

to be.

Also, of course, as you know, there is the President’s Ocean Commission, which continues to examine NOAA in part in terms of its

reviews and, in fact, Vice Admiral Lautenbacher is not here today.

He is actually out in the Pacific where he just testified to the

Ocean Commission.

Now I will address the 6 bills.

First of all, the NOAA Act of 2002 updates the administrative

structure of NOAA and authorizes 5 line offices, including OAMO,

Aircraft Operations, officer corps that operates on NOAA ships and

aircraft. The general bill authorizes—

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Gudes, I think what we will do so we don’t

split your testimony and give you plenty of time so you don’t feel

like you are rushed, I think we will yield now to Congressman

Hunter, and then we will come back to your testimony. Thank you

for your indulgence.

Mr. Hunter.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. GILCHREST. Front and center. You have the floor, Congressman Hunter. We appreciate you coming to the Subcommittee to

testify on behalf of your legislation and your constituents, and I am

supposed to ask you before you begin, did you give that fishing pole

back that somebody lent you a couple of years ago?

Mr. HUNTER. Actually, Mr. Chairman, it was taken from me as

I was leaving the Eastern Shore, Maryland. Actually somebody did

steal my golf clubs out of my car, but they discovered, I am sure,

when they got them that there is not a single club that matches

another one. But that fishing pole is a very high class fishing pole

and it will be returned.

4

Mr. GILCHREST. But that is a sign of a good golfer.

Mr. HUNTER. I appreciate the kayak rescue also.H.R. 3937

STATEMENT OF THE HON. DUNCAN HUNTER, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF

CALIFORNIA

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, thank you, and I want to thank Mr.

Saxton, too, also, and staff for being here to listen to our request.

I want to thank you for holding the hearing on H.R. 3937 and also

want to thank my constituent, Mr. Frank Dokter, who is right here

behind me. Mr. Dokter, if you could let them know who you are

here, because he has made a long journey from California to testify

today.

And this legislation is necessary to right a past error that the

Department of Interior made in designating one of our great refuges in California, the Cibola National Wildlife Refuge. Mr. Dokter

and his family operate an area called Walter’s Camp which is a

BLM concession on land that is right next to the Lower Colorado

River in Imperial County, California, and it is now within, as a result of the mistake, within the Cibola refuge, and it provides visitors with a very family friendly outdoors experience, including

camping, hiking, canoeing, fishing, bird watching and

rockhounding, not unlike your family residence on the Eastern

Shore of Maryland. I guess the only thing you don’t have is

rockhounding, Mr. Chairman.

In an increasingly crowded southern California, Mr. Dokter and

his family have provided a welcome diversion from city life for a

lot of our folks who are outdoor enthusiasts.

Walter’s Camp—and it was named after BLM was serving many

years ago and it was a little piece of land, I guess, that initially

had been homesteaded by a gentleman named Walter and they

called it Walter’s camp. It was first authorized in 1962.

In August 1964, Public Land Order 3442 withdrew 16,000-plus

acres along the Colorado River to create the Cibola Wildlife Refuge.

The withdrawal erroneously included this 140.32 acre, Walter’s

Camp. But neither BLM nor Fish and Wildlife immediately recognized they made a mistake, and BLM continued to renew the original permit allowing the recreational concession use to continue unbroken until the present day. But because they have now discovered this mistake, BLM doesn’t have the authority to continue to

issue the concession contracts to Walter’s Camp until this is pulled

back out of the refuge. And the Fish and Wildlife Service and BLM

agree that the land has, and I quote them, insignificant, if any, existing or potential wildlife habitat value. So in terms of this 16,000-

acre refuge, it is not an important aspect of that refuge. And that

is stated in a Department of Interior memo. And as a result of

that, I introduced this legislation to correct this mistake and allow

BLM to continue to operate to issue contracts to Walter’s Camp.

So I want to thank you on behalf of my constituent, Mr. Dokter,

and also all the folks in southern California who have—find it

tougher and tougher to kind of get away from the crowd. And, as

you know, we have a huge population in the L.A. Basin and the

so-called Inland Empire now and in the San Diego region. And this

is one of the few places you can get away from the city and from

5

the population centers. It has got nice recreational vehicle areas

that—where you can put in for the night with your RV and you can

camp and has fishing obviously right there on the river. It is just

a grand place for folks who like the outdoors. And this is becoming

kind of a disappearing resource in southern California, as you now

know. There is a lot of competition now on the river, so it makes

sense to restore this area that has been so heavily used by Californians in the past.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hunter follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Duncan Hunter, a Representative in Congress

from the State of California

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you and the Subcommittee members for

holding this important hearing on H.R. 3937. I would also like to express my appreciation for my constituent, Mr. Frank Dokter, who made the long trip out here from

California to testify today. This legislation is necessary to right a past error by the

Department of Interior in designating the Cibola National Wildlife Refuge.

Mr. Dokter and his family operate Walter’s Camp, a Bureau of Land Management

(BLM) concession on land near the lower Colorado River in Imperial County, California, near and within the Cibola Refuge. The facility provides visitors with a family-friendly outdoors experience, which includes camping, hiking, canoeing, fishing,

birdwatching and rock-hounding. In an increasingly crowded Southern California,

Mr. Dokter and his family have provided a welcome diversion from city life to many

of the region’s outdoors enthusiasts.

Walter’s Camp was first authorized in 1962, and in August 1964, Public Land

Order 3442 withdrew 16,627 acres along the Colorado River to create the Refuge.

The withdrawal erroneously included the 140.32 acre Walter’s Camp, but neither

the BLM or the Fish and Wildlife Service immediately recognized the mistake. The

BLM continued to renew the original permit, allowing the recreational concession

use to continue unbroken until the present time. However, given the discovery of

the past mistake, the BLM does not have the authority to continue issuing the concession contracts to Walter’s Camp.

The Fish and Wildlife Service and the BLM agree that the land has ‘‘insignificant,

if any, existing...or potential...wildlife habitat value,’’ as stated in a Department of

Interior memo. Therefor, I have introduced H.R. 3937 to correct this mistake and

allow the BLM to continue to issue contracts to Walter’s Camp.

Again, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I offer my sincere recommendation that this land be taken out of the Cibola National Wildlife Refuge,

and that Mr. Dokter’s family be allowed to continue such a valuable and productive

service to our region.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Hunter, and we appreciate the

information you have given us here this afternoon, and I am sure

your constituent appreciates the representation you have given

him. And I think we would be wise to work with you to help facilitate this transfer for someone that loves the land such as yourself

and the outdoors, and I am sure Mr. Dokter is the same way and

would like to bring people to a better level of understanding about

the beauty of nature and how to protect it, and what better place

than at the doorstep of one of America’s finest refuges. So thank

you for your testimony.

Mr. HUNTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And that fishing pole

will be returned shortly.

Mr. GILCHREST. Actually, it is probably something that I broke

later.

Mr. HUNTER. I never lost it and it was a long time ago.

Mr. GILCHREST. I am not sure if anybody else has questions for

Mr. Hunter.

6

Mr. SAXTON. I don’t have any questions. I would just like to note

it appears to me that the Fish and Wildlife Service supports this

transfer, and there is some language here in our notes that indicates all the reasons why they support Mr. Hunter’s bill. So this

should not be a problem.

Mr. HUNTER. Thank you very much. Mr. Faleomavaega.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Always a pleasure to have the gentleman

from California to testify before our Committee. Once we settle the

Crusader issue, I will be pleased.

Mr. HUNTER. Unlike Crusader, I don’t have to explain the memo

that I had the day before saying I liked it and now the memo I

have got saying I don’t like it.

Mr. GILCHREST. And I think at this point we will bring up Mr.

Gudes from NOAA and then, Mr. Dokter, we will be with you in

just a short time. Thank you.

You may begin again.

Mr. GUDES. I will pick up where I started talking about the 6

bills, Mr. Chairman.

The first act, the NOAA Act of 2002, updates the administrative

structure of NOAA and authorizes our 5 line offices, including the

Office of Marine Aviation Operations, which oversees NOAA’s commissioned officer corps and operates our ships and aircraft. This

general bill authorizes our ability to use cooperative agreements,

grants, contracts to move funds which enable partnerships with

other sectors to conduct research monitoring assessments.

You have heard me say many times, and members of the Subcommittee, how important it is that at NOAA we believe so much

in our partnerships and how much we work with universities and

State and local governments and outside groups which is very key

to our work.

As you know, I think, members of the Subcommittee know, education is a big priority for us. And I believe very strongly that our

mission includes creating the next generation of marine biologists,

of meteorologists, of oceanographers, social scientists, coastal managers, ocean explorers. And NOAA supports, especially at our regional offices all over the country and local offices, we support the

education outreach efforts. And I think there really does remain a

need for an agencywide authority in education to develop an integrated and coordinated education strategy that will really help environmental literacy and really help us make a difference.

And in the bills that are put forward today, I think in the research bill, there actually is an education authorization, and I

would ask the Subcommittee to consider whether it could put an

overall education authorization in the overall NOAA bill because I

think it pertains to all of our components. I could give you great

examples that work, National Weather Service, Fisheries Service.

The second bill, National Coastal and Ocean Service Authorization Act, renames the National Ocean Service to give equal credit

to our coastal management mission. This bill proposes to advance

efforts to integrate existing and planned regional and coastal monitoring and observation systems into one national coastal marine observing system. NOAA is a full participant in the National Ocean

Research Leadership Council and in the overall National Oceanographic Partnership Program, or NOPP, which will approve an

7

interagency report for this ocean-observing system, ocean and

coastal-observing system. Very supportive of these efforts. But I

would like to defer comments on the actual organization of the observing system until this report has been considered by the administration and delivered to Congress.

Third, or related to that, NOAA appreciates the Subcommittee’s

suggestion to specifically authorize the Coastal America Partnership Program. I think that Coastal America is an excellent example

of NOAA coming together and working with other agencies and

with the private sector to really effectively do habitat restoration

and environmental work.

Next, we appreciate the Subcommittee’s reauthorization of the

Hydrographic Service Improvements Act Amendments of 2002

which allow NOAA to continue providing data that promotes safe,

efficient maritime commerce and port security and represents the

underpinnings, the real structure underneath our maritime transportation system.

I think I have been before this Subcommittee a number of times

and relayed to you the appreciation we have for the leadership that

you have shown to really try to get NOAA to step up and do the

job it should do in terms of reducing the backlog of hydrographic

surveys and the products we provide for ports.

There is one issue that I should raise to your attention, which

has to do with slight changes to the quality assurance provisions.

The way the bill is currently drafted, it would require NOAA to

certify all hydrographic survey products. This raises issues of liability and impingement on the responsibilities of the U.S. Coast

Guard with regard to navigational products. We have concern

about litigation, I think, as this Subcommittee knows, in the fisheries and natural resource area. It seems sometimes like there is

not much we can do without being in litigation and we wouldn’t

want to really look to our hydrographic work to be similar to that.

Next, we appreciate the Subcommittee’s enactment of the NOAA

Commissioned Officers Act of 2002, which updates and consolidates

the NOAA Corps. This legislation maintains the NOAA corps officers on an updated parity with the officers of other commissioned

uniformed services. I think that the NOAA Corps, as I have said

many times in front of our officers, is the Nation’s smallest uniformed service, but I am extremely proud of them, and I often say

they are the best of our uniformed services. They are all scientists.

They work very hard. They are very dedicated. In fact, we are reminded each summer these are the individuals who fly into hurricanes, take our P3s. I had the opportunity last year to fly into Hurricane Michelle with Captain Tennison out of Tampa, and the dedication of these people is overwhelming.

Tomorrow night we are, in fact, celebrating the 85th anniversary

of Coast and Geodetic Survey which became actually the corps

which led to finally in 1970 the NOAA Corps. Very proud of this.

Finally, another bill, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Research Services Act—I said there were 6 in the beginning. I think

I had that right—which would strengthen the ability of NOAA research, our Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, to perform

its vital role in oceanic and atmospheric sciences, including climate,

to benefit the Nation.

8

The overall issue of science in NOAA, as well as the chief scientist of NOAA, the NOAA Science Advisory Board, will be among

the areas that the program review that I talked about in the beginning we will be looking at and will be coming forward to our administrator.

The Subcommittee’s bill also updates and modernizes the authorization of climate research, a very topical area. This legislation establishes a formal Office of Climate Research that will support

NOAA’s sustained observing and monitoring capabilities to maintain our role as a leading science agency in climate research and

services.

I understand that the NOAA climate change report will be reviewed by the Science Committee within the next week as requested and we intend to try to get that up here to Members of

Congress.

Last, NOAA would like to work with the Subcommittee to ensure

that the National Marine Fisheries Services Establishment Act enables NOAA to comprehensibly manage the Nation’s living marine

resources. In addition, of course, the managing commercial fisheries and recreational fisheries in a sustainable manner. It is very

important to stipulate our—as I say, fiduciary responsibilities to

protect its species to marine mammals, endangered and threatened

species like sea turtles, for example, and to manage and conserve

and restore habitat, very big issue to us, as you know, Mr. Chairman, as you know on the Eastern Shore and the work we have

done in habitat restoration.

NOAA appreciates this opportunity to provide initial comments

on draft legislation. As I said at the beginning to all the members

of the Subcommittee and the staff, we really do on behalf of all the

men and women, on behalf of Vice Admiral Conrad Lautenbacher,

we very much appreciate your interest in the agency and support

for the agency and leadership on these issues. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gudes follows:]

Statement of Scott Gudes, Deputy Under Secretary for Oceans and

Atmosphere, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S.

Department of Commerce

I. INTRODUCTION

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, for this opportunity

to appear before you to testify on this draft legislation reauthorizing many of the

ocean and coastal programs of the Department of Commerce’s National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). NOAA appreciates your continued support

and interest in ensuring that it has the appropriate authorities and organization to

address its ocean and coastal missions and responsibilities. In recent years, these

programs have been the subject of many hearings before this Subcommittee. We

note that the draft bills would authorize the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and four of its line offices, the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR), the National Marine Fisheries Services (NMFS), the Office Marine

and Aircraft Operations (OMAO), and the National Ocean Service (NOS), as well

as the Hydrographic Services Improvement Act. These draft bills are being reviewed

by the Department and the Department would appreciate the opportunity to provide

written views on them prior to the markup.

One apparent goal of the legislation is to clarify the roles and responsibilities of

four NOAA line offices that have ocean and coastal responsibilities’the National

Ocean Service, the Office of Marine and Aircraft Operations, the Office of Oceanic

and Atmospheric Research, and the National Marine Fisheries Service. The thrust

of the legislation is to better integrate existing activities and capabilities versus creating new programs, and to improve the scientific basis for decision-making. The

9

Department and NOAA will continue working with the Subcommittee to ensure that

the different bills appropriately address authorizations for each NOAA line office.

The Administration is implementing the Oceans Act of 2000. The President appointed the Commission on Ocean Policy last summer. Currently, the Commission

is in the midst of a series of nine regional fact-finding meetings. In fact, Vice Admiral Lautenbacher is presently testifying at an Oceans Commission Field Hearing.

Commission Chairman, Admiral James D. Watkins, USN (Ret), has indicated his intent to complete the Commission’s work and produce a final report on schedule a

year from now.

The Administration shares your interest in the relationship among these programs. Upon coming to NOAA, our Administrator, Vice Admiral Conrad C.

Lautenbacher, Jr. USN (Ret.), called for a bottom-up, fundamental ‘‘NOAA Program

Review’’ to examine the Agency’s strengths and opportunities for improvement. In

February, the Vice Admiral gave all NOAA employees an opportunity to suggest organizational, resource and business process changes. Since that time, I have been

serving as chair of the NOAA Program Review Team, a group of sixteen NOAA Executives representing each line and staff office, supported by a staff of executive

leadership candidates, and a contract facilitator. This team has discussed and debated a number of programmatic and organizational issues, employee suggestions

and has put forward their own ideas for building a better NOAA to serve the American people.

As you know, most of the new leadership for NOAA has now come on board. At

this time, we are drafting the Program Review Team (PRT) report and will soon

present this to the Administrator, Deputy Administrator and senior NOAA and Department of Commerce leadership for their consideration. While I cannot discuss the

report prior to its review, approval and release, I should note that we have considered some of the issues raised by this Subcommittee and this legislation. NOAA

leadership will, of course, return to discuss with you and the Committee staff relevant issues after the Administration has considered the PRT report. I hope that

we can work with you on any reforms and legislative changes that may be required.

I will provide some comments on the draft legislation here today. But, in part because of the review we are finalizing, I would also like to reserve the right to provide subsequent suggestions. I will keep the Subcommittee updated on the Administration’s efforts and look forward to working with you as a bill is finalized. NOAA

will continue working with the Subcommittee to ensure that authorizations for each

NOAA office are appropriately addressed and are consistent with the President’s

Budget.

II. NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION

AUTHORIZATION

Generally NOAA supports the provisions in Title I, Section 101, outlining the activities NOAA is authorized to undertake in pursuit of its missions. As you know,

NOAA’s mission is twofold: to describe and predict changes in the earth’s environment, and to conserve and manage wisely the Nation’s coastal and marine resources

and to provide sustainable economic opportunities. NOAA will also work with the

Subcommittee to be sure we have the necessary funding authorities for grants, contracts, and other agreements. As these authorities are the tools we need to do our

job, it is important that this section provides the necessary flexibility and efficiency.

III. THE NATIONAL COASTAL AND OCEAN SERVICE AUTHORIZATION ACT

The National Coastal and Ocean Service Authorization Act renames NOAA’s

National Ocean Service (NOS) the National Coastal and Ocean Service—a change

which better reflects the scope of NOS programs. NOS’ mission is to be our principal

line office for coastal stewardship through partnerships at all levels. NOS works to

support and provide the science, information, management, and leadership necessary to balance the environmental and economic well-being of the Nation’s coastal

resources and communities. Programs like our NOS Coastal Services Center integrate NOAA programs and focus on program delivery for our customers—America’s

coastal managers and communities.

Section 3. National Coastal and Ocean Service

As Section 3(b) indicates, NOS relies on a variety of underlying statutory authorities. Among these authorities are the Coastal Zone Management Act and the

National Marine Sanctuaries Act, both of which support NOS’ mission of managing

and conserving the coastal and ocean resources upon which our Nation depends. Explicit in these management programs is the need for interagency cooperation and

partnerships. NOS uses, promotes and relies upon partnerships with other agencies,

States, local authorities, nongovernmental organizations, Federally recognized Indian tribes, academia and the private sector. Section 3(d) of the draft bill is intended

10

to promote this partnership-based approach by providing the authority to use a variety of agreements, grants and other cooperative tools; however, we believe the section, as drafted, may require technical revision, and the Department will work with

the Subcommittee on this language. NOAA suggests that the bill provide explicit authority for the Coastal America Partnership Program in this section of the bill.

NOAA will continue to work with the Subcommittee to ensure that the grants and

agreements language provides both the flexibility and the efficiency to carry out its

work.

Section 4. Coastal Monitoring, Assessment, Observation, and Forecasting

Throughout the Federal Government, as well as at the State and local level and

academia, people are engaged in a wide variety of coastal monitoring and related

activities. Much of the monitoring is regional and often is conducted or supported

by a variety of Federal agencies ranging from NOAA, the U.S. Geological Survey

and the Coast Guard to the National Science Foundation and the U.S. Navy. Data

is gathered to meet the program requirements or the needs of a specific group of

users. Currently there are efforts underway to coordinate these various systems into an

Integrated and Sustained Coastal Ocean Observing System. This effort is part of the

larger effort to develop the U.S. contribution to the Global Ocean Observing System

(GOOS), which is international in scope. NOAA is a full participant in these efforts,

which are being led by the National Ocean Research Leadership Council (NORLC)

of which NOAA is a member. In March, a meeting was held in Virginia to further

develop an implementation plan for the U.S. contributions to GOOS. The meeting

was held in order to help coordinate a response to a Congressional request for various agencies to develop a plan for an ocean observing system. A paper is being prepared and should be presented to the NORLC for approval at the semiannual meeting on May 23. The Council intends to forward it to the White House Office of

Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) for its final review before delivery to Congress.

While supportive of the objectives of Section 4, I would like to defer comments

on the specific organization of the coastal observing system until the OSTP/NORLC

report is delivered to Congress.

Section 5: Coastal and Navigation Services

This section on technical assistance provides the authority to train, educate and

assist others through the transfer of technology and expertise in areas relating to

ocean and coastal resource management.

Section 6: State of the Coast Report

A periodic assessment would help identify new challenges and help monitor and

assess the success of ongoing research and management efforts. NOAA will work

with the Committee to determine the most effective means for achieving this objective.

IV. HYDROGRAPHIC SERVICE IMPROVEMENT AMENDMENTS

Overview

The Administration supports reauthorization of the Hydrographic Services Improvement Act (HSIA) of 1998. NOAA’s hydrographic services provide data that promote safe, efficient maritime commerce and port security. We do have several comments on some elements of the draft bill under consideration by the Subcommittee,

relating to the implementation of a product quality assurance program, discussing

the program mission, creating a permanent advisory panel, repealing of the Act of

1947 and authorizing appropriations.

Section 3: Quality Assurance Program

The Hydrographic Services Improvement Act of 1998, Section 303 (a)(3) directs

NOAA to promulgate standards for hydrographic services provided by the Administration. Under Section 304, the Administrator then may, at his or her discretion,

certify hydrographic products produced by non–Federal entities that meet those

standards. Some examples of standards NOAA has promulgated or is promulgating

include: International Hydrographic Organization (IHO) S–44 Standards for Hydrographic Surveys, the NOAA Hydrographic Manual and survey specifications in contracts for hydrographic surveys; Tide and Current Table production standards; the

Nautical Charting Manual and IHO chart specifications; and recommended Standards for Electronic Chart Systems.

The Quality Assurance section of the HSIA (Sec. 304) states that NOAA may develop and implement a quality assurance program to certify ‘‘hydrographic products,’’ which the HSIA defines as ‘‘any publicly or commercially available product

11

produced by a non–Federal entity that includes or displays hydrographic data.’’ The

draft bill changes the term ‘‘may’’ to ‘‘shall.’’ The draft bill would require the

Secretary to implement such a program within 2 years. For the following reasons,

NOAA opposes this change.

The language raises questions of liability. The proposed amendment would require

NOAA certify any and all products on a basis that is equally available to all interested parties. Certification would imply that NOAA authorizes products for a specific use, i.e., for navigation. Therefore, if enacted and implemented, the Federal

Government would likely be named as a party to litigation stemming from marine

accidents in which one or more of the parties used a privately produced product that

had been certified by NOAA. The HSIA attempts to limit exposure to liability at

Section 304(c), which says the Federal Government shall ‘‘not be liable for any negligence by a person that produces’’ certified products. But, parties could bring other

causes of action against NOAA by claiming that NOAA itself was negligent by failing to discover the negligence of the party producing the hydrographic product prior

to issuing a certification. NOAA’s certification obligations are also unclear under the

new language. NOAA may be under an obligation to identify all producers of hydrographic products and review them for accuracy prior to certifying them. This creates

a potential litigation threat and could raise legal costs for the Department of Commerce.

It may impinge on responsibilities of the U.S. Coast Guard. As noted, certification

by NOAA would imply Federal approval of the product for use in navigation. This

could lead to confusion because the Coast Guard, not NOAA, has responsibility for

certifying aids to navigation (including NOAA charts) as meeting legal carriage requirements as established under international law and agreements. NOAA would

coordinate the certification requirement very closely with the U.S. Coast Guard.

NOAA recommends a thorough Coast Guard review of the quality assurance provisions before enactment.

The HSIA at Section 304(b)(2) says NOAA can charge a fee for certification and

that the fee can be set to cover the complete cost of the certification process, including administration. The proposed amendment states that implementation is ‘‘subject

to the availability of appropriations.’’ It is unclear whether the program should be

self sufficient or not. If mandated to implement the quality assurance program, the

program should not be subsidized by taxpayers.

Section 4(a).—Mission

In the mission statement, NOAA recommends including language to enable NOAA

to support port security efforts. NOAA disagrees with the Subcommittee’s proposed

amendment which would permit the Administrator to use funds directly in support

of two other NOAA missions, coastal and fishery management. As drafted, this

could potentially divert resources from navigation requirements, such as reducing

the survey backlog. Instead, NOAA recommends language that would direct the

Agency to aggressively seek such ancillary uses of hydrographic data.

Section 5—Creating a Permanent Advisory Panel

The creation of permanent advisory panels can provide some benefits for pressing

public matters that require ongoing, frequent interaction among all interests. In this

case, alternatives, such as studies by the National Research Council/National Academies of Science and routine outreach activities could be used to achieve similar results. Also, NOAA currently is an active participant in the interagency effort on the

Marine Transportation System (MTS), which already has an advisory group. The

MTS National Advisory Committee could create a working group to address issues

related to hydrographic services. This may be better option because a working group

could look beyond NOAA and examine all Federal agencies with navigation information responsibilities, including the Navy, the National Imagery and Mapping Agency

(NIMA), the Army Corps of Engineers, and the Coast Guard.

Section 4(b)(2)—Repeal of the Act of 1947

The draft bill repeals the 55 year old organic authority for NOAA’s navigation and

positioning programs, including surveying, mapping, charting, tides, currents and

related activities. The goal of merging the 1947 Act and the HSIA has merit but,

as proposed, the 1947 Act’s permanent authorization for these programs is not sustained. The Administration understands that limiting authorizations of appropriations to a set number of years provides an impetus for Congress to maintain its

oversight responsibilities. Programs relating directly to public safety, however,

should not be subjected to the potential uncertainty that is created when such authorizations lapse. The Administration recommends that the following language be

inserted at the end of Section 7:

12

‘‘(5) If this Act is not reauthorized before Fiscal Year 2009, such sums as

necessary may be appropriated for the activities authorized under this Act

for each subsequent fiscal year beginning in Fiscal Year 2009.’’

Section 7: Authorization of Appropriations

The proposed section authorizing appropriations should be consistent with the

President’s Fiscal Year 2003 budget request.

V. NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION

COMMISSIONED OFFICERS ACT OF 2002

The availability of commissioned officers within this agency, in numbers sufficient

to satisfy our operational requirements, is a matter of growing importance as we

face new challenges. The Corps has proven its usefulness and I believe it has a continuing role to play as NOAA strives to reach its fullest potential in service to the

Nation. The administration supports better alignment of the substance of current

NOAA Corps personnel authorities and practices with similar authorities and practices, as now reflected in the revised and modernized Title 10 of the United States

Code. Much of the existing language for the NOAA Corps has as its source the

Coast and Geodetic Survey Commissioned Officers Act of 1948, which served to provide parity with the other commissioned services. Little substantive modernization

has occurred in the existing language over the years. Consolidation into one comprehensive Act of existing statutory language related to the NOAA Corps, language

that is now scattered in the United States Code, would be helpful. We are reviewing

the draft bill, including the statutory roles assigned to the President, and will provide written views as soon as the review is complete.

VI. THE NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH SERVICE ACT

I would like to next address the portion of the bill entitled, A National Oceanic

and Atmospheric Research Service Act,@ which authorizes changes in what is now

NOAA’s Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR) or A NOAA Research@

as it is often called. As an important and integral component of NOAA, NOAA Research explores the earth and atmosphere from the surface of the sun to the depths

of the ocean. The NOAA Research role within the agency’s larger mission is to provide research for products and services that describe and predict changes in the environment. Our results allow decision makers to make effective judgments in order

to prevent the loss of human life and conserve and manage natural resources. The

office conducts research in three major areas: atmosphere, climate, and ocean and

coastal resources.

Section 4. Assistant Administrator for Oceanic and Atmospheric Research and Chief

Scientist

This draft bill establishes the current NOAA OAR as the A National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Research Service@ within NOAA. The bill provides that the Assistant

Administrator of the Service will serve an additional role as the Chief Scientist of

NOAA. The section authorizes the outreach and education functions of the Service

and provides a legislative mandate for the Office of Weather and Air Quality, an

Office of Climate Research, and an Office of Oceanographic Research, Exploration,

and Extension. It authorizes the National Undersea Research Program as well as

authorizes the Assistant Administrator to oversee the National Sea Grant College

Program. In respect to Sea Grant, the Administration recommends that the legislation be amended to be consistent with the President’s Budget. The legislation formalizes the existing partnerships between NOAA Research and our university partners in 11 Joint Institutes. In addition, the legislation mandates that the Assistant

Administrator/Chief Scientist will be selected for the position by virtue of education

and scientific credentials and shall be the principal science advisor to the NOAA Administrator.

Current legislative mandates for NOAA Research programs include the National

Weather Service Organic Act of 1890 (15 U.S.C. ’ 313), which provides a non-expiring authority for NOAA to monitor and record climatic conditions, and the 1990

Global Change Research Act (15 U.S.C. ’ 2921), which establishes the U.S. Global

Change Research Program (USGCRP) aimed at understanding climate variability

and predictability. The Non-indigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control

Act of 1990 provides authority through 2002 for NOAA to fund research, prevention

and control activities that relate to aquatic nuisance species. The National Sea

Grant College Program Re-authorization Act of 1998 authorizes the National Sea

Grant College Program, the Knauss Fellows program, and research on invasive species, oyster disease, and harmful algal blooms through 2003. The Sea Grant program was originally authorized in 1966.

13

Science and research at NOAA is one of the areas that has been discussed by the

NOAA Program Review Team (PRT). The issue of NOAA research and science in

support of our oceanic and atmospheric missions as well as the role of the Chief Scientist and the NOAA Science Advisory Board will be one of the areas that the PRT

report will cover. As I noted earlier in my testimony, these are issues that will be

discussed with the Administrator, Deputy Administrator and the senior leadership

team in NOAA and the Department of Commerce.

Section 5. Office of Climate Research

As you are aware, NOAA is well established as a leading science agency in climate research. Our research in this area has led to key accomplishments such as

helping to identify the cause of the ozone hole in the Antarctic and providing a sixmonth warning on El Nino in 1997. The agency hears from stakeholders that the

need is greater than ever for delivery of reliable climate information for enhanced

planning and decision making. Providing reliable climate information is becoming

increasingly important to the health, safety and vitality of the American people and

to the national and global economies. The Federal Government should play a strong

role in providing climate information that is crucial in helping our stakeholders

manage their lives and businesses.

To respond to the need for a coordinated Federal research effort and reliable climate information, the Administration has proposed restructuring climate programs

within the Federal Government to better enable them to answer scientific questions

that ultimately influence policy. Therefore, the White House has proposed that the

government’s climate change research be coordinated through two new offices, a Climate Change Science Program Office and a Climate Change Technology Program

Office. The Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere will be

designated to head the Climate Change Science Office. The Administration is seeking to address the concerns that the current U.S. Global Change Research Program

overseen by seven Federal agencies may not be wide enough in scope to meet the

constantly changing needs of climate research and may not provide sufficient accountability. Under the Administration proposal, a cabinet-level Committee on Climate Change Science and Technology Integration will make recommendations to the

President on climate change issues. It is anticipated that NOAA will play a significant role in supporting this effort. We look forward to working with the Congress

toward achieving our common goals in delivery of the world’s best climate research.

Section 6. Office of Weather and Air Quality Research

We are very appreciative of the support from Congress on the recent passage of

the amendment to the energy legislation as passed in H.R. 4 which provides NOAA

with authority to issue air quality forecasts and regional warnings as a mission of

the agency. Providing a mandate for NOAA’s air quality research will be beneficial

to the American public. The 1990 Clean Air Amendments define NOAA’s role in providing the atmospheric chemistry and transport research that supports the efforts

of the interagency National Acid Rain Precipitation Program. We look forward to

working with the Committee to develop language that properly clarifies NOAA’s role

in air quality forecasting research.

Section 7 - 10. Oceanographic Research, Exploration, and Extension, Ocean

Exploration Program, and the National Undersea Research Program

The current version of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Research Act establishes an Office of Oceanographic Research, Education and Extension and an Office

of Ocean Exploration and the National Undersea Research Program (NURP). NOAA

Research and NOAA Ocean Service manage an Office of Ocean Exploration (OE)

that has a mission of searching and investigating the oceans for the purpose of discovery and the advancement of knowledge of the ocean’s physical, chemical and biological environments, processes, characteristics, and resources. OE accomplishes this

through interdisciplinary expeditions to unknown, or poorly known regions and

through innovative experiments. The program advocates discovery-based science

and collaboration between multiple partners and disciplines.

As proposed, the authorization bill mandates an outreach and education function

within NOAA Research. Education is an important component of NOAA’s mission

and of ensuring that future generations are prepared for the science needs of tomorrow. An education focus has been provided for some specific NOAA programs, but

it would be preferable to have the agency-wide authority to develop an integrated

and coordinated education strategy and program. To deliver information about our

research effectively, a strong communications function is critical to success. If we

are to promote scientific literacy and foster the next generation of world-class scientists to lead us into the 21st century, we need to strengthen our outreach and

education capabilities and fully integrate communications into the management

14

structure of the agency. We look forward to working with the Committee meet these

objectives.

An important feature of the authorization is that it supports the longstanding relationships NOAA has with university partners through the Joint Institutes. We believe that these partnerships are critical to achieving NOAA’s research goals and

that the relationships have been key to our successful track record in environmental

research. We look forward to further solidifying those partnerships through a legislative mandate.

VII. NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICES ESTABLISHMENT ACT

NOAA appreciates the Subcommittee’s efforts to formally authorize the National

Marine Fisheries Service through this draft bill. It is important to note that this

authorization would supplement NOAA’s existing authority to manage the Nation’s

additional living marine resources, such as marine mammals and endangered or

threatened species, among others. NOAA serves a significant role in protecting and

managing these resources through its authority under the Marine Mammal Protection Act and the Endangered Species Act. These resources also include managing

the effects to marine or anadromous species due to hydropower projects, and preservation of essential fish habitats. NOAA would also suggest that section 3(b)(1) be

changed to reflect NOAA’s present work which includes resources in state and international waters, such as marine mammals. For these resources, NOAA partners

with states and other countries to ensure that the resources are managed in a comprehensive manner. NOAA would like to work with the Subcommittee to ensure

these important authorities that will enable NOAA to comprehensively manage the

Nation’s living marine resources.

VIII. CONCLUSION

NOAA appreciates this opportunity to provide initial comments on this draft legislation. NOAA commends the Subcommittee for recognizing the need to facilitate the

integration of ongoing research and management programs and to focus national

monitoring and observation efforts on meeting diverse national needs and requirements. We look forward to working with the Subcommittee as this legislation is introduced and makes its way through the legislative process.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Gudes. The bottom-up review

that is being conducted by your agency now, is there a general

timeframe when that will be concluded so that it will correspond

to the movement of this authorization before it hits the House

Floor so we can adopt some of those suggestions, changes?

Mr. GUDES. What I can tell you is that the review has been completed, that we have been—we use some of our executive—it was

an internal NOAA staff effort, leadership and staff, ideas that came

from the people who work across the agency, across the country. I

chaired it. We are moving forward next week to the Admiral and

to the leadership panel. He is the boss. He works things as a corporate board. We are a bureau of the Department of Commerce.

The next stage would be to go to the Secretary of Commerce level,

and I would assume the Office of Management and Budget. I know

the Admiral’s disposition would be to have us come up and brief

the Committee staff and the Committee. Unfortunately, I really

can only tell you from the first part of my statement that I know

when it is going to the NOAA board. I don’t know how long it will

take and how many issues will have to be reviewed. I don’t know

how long it will be able to bring it to you.

Mr. GILCHREST. We would like to stay in touch with you on that

so as you go through that process in the next, let us say, week or

two, we might have some estimate as to the length of time that you

can come to some conclusions and recommendations, so that perhaps in the process of—before we mark it up, I think it would be

the best time in the Subcommittee, but any time it hits the House

Floor. We would like to mark this bill up and get it signed this sesVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:38 Jan 29, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 79659.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
15

sion and not wait another year on that. So any recommendations

you can give us would be very helpful.

Mr. Gudes, you mentioned a specific authorization for education.

Would you have some language as to the direction that that would

take? Is that the Ph.D. Level, undergraduate, graduate degree,

public schools? How do you envision that?

Mr. GUDES. In certain parts of NOAA like the marine sanctuary

program, there are specific authorizations that say that education

is part of our mission. As an agency we have gone far beyond that

and we very much take to heart the effective way to do environmental education. There are specific programs, University of Maryland - Eastern Shore, we have worked on. I think where we are

sort of lacking is an overall direction in terms of an organic act in

terms of Congress that says what I said, that what our mission includes education as we interpret it, as we believe it. I think that

all the above that you mentioned are true.

We work at the university level very much and I find some of the

most uplifting, impressive things that people in the agency do are

with K through 12 at the local level. I could sit here and talk about

a lot of these efforts.

Mr. GILCHREST. So this is something that is being reviewed with

that bottom-up review.

Mr. GUDES. Yes, education is one of the areas we looked at. A

lot of our employees had a lot of comments about it and it is something that I think most people across NOAA share. My new boss

came from the Consortium for Oceanographic Research and Education. He is a big believer in educational outreach and what we

can do, as I said, to help the next generation. It is an important

issue for the country and an important issue for the agency in

terms of where our workforce will come from.

Mr. GILCHREST. In that bottom-up review, is there a good

amount of time being spent with the National Marine Fisheries

Service and the kinds of—all of the issues surrounding their relationship with the council’s overcapitalization, ecosystem, management plans, the education of—a consortium with the industry to

gather data to use their boats for data, those kinds of things?

Mr. GUDES. We haven’t had a number of those efforts ongoing.

I know we are dealing with performance measures and workshops.

We have been getting together with different constituents in terms

of fisheries to look at some of the very issues you raised. You tend

to look more corporately at NOAA overall in issues like science in

NOAA that I mentioned before and that would relate to fisheries

as it would to a number of areas where we conduct research. We

didn’t address as much some of the specific line office issues.

Mr. GILCHREST. Just the basic structure of NOAA.

Mr. GUDES. The admiral asked 3 basic questions and sent it out

to the NOAA employees, and they kind of go like: ‘‘Are we aligned

correctly for our mission now and in the future?’’

Mr. GILCHREST. Just taking that one question as an example,

coastal ocean-observing program, how is that aligned with the

NMFS community to gather information to give to the councils to

make their allocation decisions?

Mr. GUDES. Well—

Mr. GILCHREST. Or is that something —

16

Mr. GUDES. We might address an issue like how many parts of

NOAA do ocean observing, what sort of programs do they run, does

that current structure make sense. Fisheries—as you know, biological and fishery observing centers like FOCI would be one of the

types of systems that one would consider.

As far as getting the second part of the question, getting the data

to the council, I don’t think that would be the type of issue that

would be addressed.

If I could, Mr. Chairman, just to make sure I finished. There

were 3 fundamental questions the admiral asked the NOAA employees in the program review. One was, ‘‘Are we aligned for our

mission now and in the future?’’

Second, ‘‘Are we resourced correctly?’’

And, third, ‘‘Are our—this is my paraphrasing—our business

processes as good as they could be? Are we doing business as efficiently as we could?’’ And it is those sort of general parameters.

And generally, NOAA corporate, if you will, if that—

Mr. GILCHREST. And that is very good and we would like to—as

you come through with that kind of information, we would be very

happy to participate in that process before we come up with our

bills, especially the collaborative end of that, how do you synthesize

all of that information, what is NOAA’s mission, for example, it is

a myriad of things. And there is climate studies going on out there

that are going to impact and the specific purpose for the climate

studies. Some of them, at any rate, is to see how they impact the

fisheries. And there are observing tools out there for ocean currents

and maybe a classic book could be written by an employee of

NOAA as ocean currents and scallop larvae would be a best seller,

I think. But to understand that ocean currents—where they carry

the phytoplankton and where the larvae is carried pretty much determines how much fish you are going to have in a particular place.

So if all of that information that is absorbed by the various entities of NOAA, that data is pulled together and synthesized along

with the climate variabilities, we up here can get a better picture

and determine policy. I just look forward to working with you on

that bottom-up review.

Mr. GUDES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Underwood.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to

submit my opening statement for the record.

Mr. GILCHREST. Without objection.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Underwood follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Robert Underwood, a Delegate in Congress

from Guam

Thank you Mr. Chairman. The programs and activities of the National Oceanic

and Atmospheric Administration are of paramount interest to the members of this

subcommittee.

In this regard, I always welcome new opportunities to have representatives from

NOAA come before the subcommittee to further enlighten us about NOAA’s essential role as the Federal Government’s principal steward of our Nation’s living ocean

and coastal resources.

But as much as I enjoy hearing from NOAA, I must say that I find it odd to convene a legislative oversight hearing on several draft NOAA bills and fail to invite

any witnesses other than NOAA to testify.

17

Rest assured, I am confident that we will hear only the unvarnished truth from

NOAA about the merits or faults of these bills. But I cannot believe the we would

not benefit from the views and comments of interested parties outside of the agency.

In addition, it remains uncertain to me why this subcommittee, or the Congress

in general, should be considering at this time organic legislation to authorize the

administration and organizational structure of NOAA.

At present, two separate panels—the National Commission of Ocean Policy and

the Pew Oceans Commission—are in the midst of comprehensive reviews of U.S. domestic ocean policy, governance and resource management. Both commissions are

likely to produce valuable insights and comprehensive recommendations that could

be pivotal in determining how best to reorganize not only NOAA, but also how to

reshape the entire Federal Government as it applies to our future interaction as a

society with the ocean environment.

By these comments, it is not my intent to insinuate that the ideas contained in

these draft bills are without merit. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact,

ideas such as re-authorizing the Hydrographic Survey Act, or authorizing an entirely new integrated coastal monitoring program, are laudable and worth pursuing.

Rather, I am simply saying that we may be acting prematurely. If we do decide

to move organic authorizing legislation for NOAA, I strongly suggest that we will

need a more thorough vetting of these ideas to ensure that the subcommittee has

all the facts in hand before proceeding.

As always, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working cooperatively and in a bipartisan fashion with you, and with the other members of this subcommittee, to ensure

that NOAA remains the Federal Government’s pre-eminent authority on ocean and

coastal matters. Thank you.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. I thought you might object.

Mr. GILCHREST. I was thinking about objecting.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. I want to submit Mr. Pallone’s statement for

the record.

Mr. GILCHREST. Without objection.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in

Congress from the State of New Jersey

Mr. Chairman, I have strong concerns about the draft reauthorization measure for

the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) because it does not

include adequate authorizing text for the National Undersea Research Program

(NURP). Instead, there is inclusion of a new mandate to authorize the Ocean Exploration program, a new program that duplicates the NURP mission in many respects.

It was a shock to me that NURP did not receive much in the way of support in

this bill.

NURP has a long record of accomplishment that includes science-based programs

resulting in information used to form national policy on deep sea disposal, fisheries

management and shoreline protection. NURP has been in existence for over 20

years but has never received formal reauthorization, and instead has relied on Congress to support it through the budget process. The six regional undersea centers

comprising the NURP perform a major role in the nation’s research effort, promoting the sustainable development of aquatic resources, global environmental

change and ocean technology.

The National Undersea Research Center for the Middle Atlantic Bight region is

located in my district at Rutgers University. The Center, which was created in 1992,

has focused on establishing Long-term Ecosystem Observatories that enable multidisciplinary science using in situ observations and manipulations. A key strength

of NURP is its partnerships with scientists and resource managers from academia,

private research institutions and Federal, state and local agencies.

The language that has been created for the authorization measure for NURP is

simple and has been approved by both NOAA and the 6 regional NURP centers. I

would like an explanation for why NOAA did not move forward on text that was

already agreed upon by all NURP regional centers and NOAA itself.

In addition, formal language is needed that promotes partnering between NURP

and the Ocean Exploration program since NOAA can save money if the two programs work together. The new Ocean Exploration program possesses several unique

objectives that can complement the NURP mission and long record of achievement.

18

By working more closely together, both programs can become a more efficient and

effective asset for NOAA research.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Gudes, you know the National Undersea

Research Program, NURP, was agreed upon last year by all 6

NURP centers and NOAA itself, that you know it was going to receive some attention and some priority. Don’t you think it should

be included in the reauthorization of NOAA specifically?

Mr. GUDES. I think the bill before the Subcommittee—you have

addressed it under ocean exploration as a generic term, if I understand it, which relates both to—I believe this is what the Subcommittee has proposed—both the ocean exploration program, undersea research program and actually, I think, some of the related

programs like JASON. That is the Subcommittee’s judgment, I

think, on whether there should be subelements to that.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. I appreciate that, but I am asking for what you

think and what NOAA thinks about specifically identifying the

NURP program.

Mr. GUDES. I think NURP is an excellent undersea research program being conducted at 6 centers and has been going on since the

late 1970’s, early 1980’s timeframe. I think the ocean exploration

program that this Subcommittee helped get going 2 years ago—the

NURP program were both complementary programs. I probably see

the similarities between undersea research and ocean exploration

maybe more than the two programs do. And I think that they are,

in fact, slightly different.

I think when we talked last year, we talked about nonhypothesisdriven research.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Just seems like yesterday.

Mr. GUDES. You had said that you didn’t quite understand that,

and I almost said back to you I don’t quite understand it, either,

but I couldn’t say that. I think there are ways of doing undersea

research and exploration in doing the right kind of things that

NOAA needs to do and the country needs to do, and there are

slightly different ways of doing it. Ocean exploration is a little bit

oriented toward going to areas to see what is there, but also a little

bit different in terms of who competes. It is bringing more partnerships into the program. It is bringing new undersea exploration

partners into the program.

In the NURP program we have been funding the infrastructure

at 6 centers. They are very solid—I can go through them, if you

want, and I think that that helps provide the infrastructure and

underpinning and, in fact, just to show you back what I said, there

are a number of these initiatives and competitions run under the

ocean exploration program which NURP centers are competing for

and winning.

So, for example, we will be conducting research in the Arctic area

of Alaska and in the Gulf of Alaska and the University of Alaska

NURP program will likely be a member of that and a part of that.

We conducted exploration missions along the East Coast last

year. University of Connecticut, Avery Point NURP Center, Rutgers, New Jersey NURP Center, and University of North CarolinaWilmington were all part of that exploration mission. So I really

do see them as interrelated programs.

19

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Just to understand—you know, I know that

NOAA’s currently undergoing this bottom-up review. And also in

the current environment, there is also the National Commission of

Ocean Policy and the Pew Ocean Commission are also conducting

in the midst of comprehensive reviews of U.S. Domestic policy,

ocean policy governance and resource management. How are those

efforts different or how do they complement yours, and how is it,

in your mind, do you think we can make the best use of all of those

efforts in the Subcommittee?

Mr. GUDES. I think all of these things, first of all, are very positive. I think Admiral Lautenbacher said last year when I saw him

at the Ocean Policy Commission, we do this once every 30 years,

Stratton Commission, the new commission, a good fundamental review, Federal-wide what we are doing, nationwide what we are

doing. Again the Pew effort. I think this is all positive. It is all

about the year of the oceans, it is all about the sort of efforts that

you all have been advocating. A number of these are external

groups of which they are looking in part at NOAA and telling us

what they think we do well or don’t do well or how we fit.

The internal review—the program review is an internal review.

It is NOAA employees coming forward and taking a look how we—

and it goes beyond just ocean programs, all NOAA atmospheric

ocean programs from solar forecasting to undersea research, how

we think we fit together as an organization internally and a little

bit looking out. So it is two sides of some of the same issues.

I don’t think these other groups will be looking at business practices, for example, which we are within NOAA, things like human

resources.

I talked about education. Human resources, how are we going to

attract the kind of work force that NOAA is going to need to attract

to be the premier scientific agency, research and service agency,

stewardship agency in 5 years, 10 years, 20 years as the workforce

is declining. Those are the kind of issues that we are taking about.

Probably these other commissions are not. So they are all related.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Thank you.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Underwood. Mr. Saxton.

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to submit

my statement for the record as well.

Mr. GILCHREST. Without objection.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Saxton follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Jim Saxton, a Representative in Congress

from the State of New Jersey

Good afternoon Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. Thank you to

the witnesses for taking the time to be here today. I am pleased this hearing is

being held to discuss a number of draft bills, including the National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration Act of 2002.

I would like to express my concern however, with one provision of this bill. The

current draft does not include adequate authorizing text for the National Undersea

Research Program (NURP). In fact, the draft bill does not adequately provide for

this program, which is a hallmark for the nation’s undersea research, education,

and technology development efforts.

Of particular concern is the inclusion of a new mandate to authorize the Ocean

Exploration program, a mandate that duplicates the NURP mission in many respects. NOAA and the Council of NURP Center Directors drafted authorization text

for NURP last year. I respectfully request you consider this modification as a substitute for the current language in the draft bill.

20

In addition, collaboration between the NURP and Ocean Exploration programs

needs to be improved. NURP has many strengths that can be brought to bear on

the emerging Ocean Exploration program. I have long been a strong supporter of

the NURP program, and look forward to working with the Chairman and the other

members of the subcommittee to address the concerns I have with this bill, as it

is currently written.

Thank you, and I look forward to hearing from the witnesses.

Mr. SAXTON. And I would also like to say there are others who

share Mr. Underwood’s concern that the current draft does not include adequate authorizing text for the National Undersea Research Program, and I have discussed this with staff, including

John Rayfield who is sitting next to me. And my opening statement

discusses this issue in detail. I am satisfied that we will be able

to work this out between now and markup, so—

Mr. GILCHREST. I would—I will be glad to work it out with Mr.

Underwood, Mr. Saxton, and certainly NOAA. National undersea

research and ocean exploration programs to me are extremely critical into finding out what we don’t know. We can’t set a program

and create status and standards until you get out there to see what

is out there. And I think part of that phenomenon is finding out

about those thermal vents where you have these creatures that

don’t use sunlight to survive. Some extraordinary things we can

find out in this—what was that—we can end this Congress. Congress is a human institution, so we have some strange phenomenon

happening here on a regular basis, but that is to be expected, I

think, sometimes enjoy.

But the ocean exploration, Mr. Saxton, I want to assure you that

I am not sure $14 million dollars that is authorized for that is

enough. So if we can pursue that and make sure that—the discussion we had 2 years ago was a good discussion, Mr. Gudes. I would

certainly urge you to ensure in that bottom-up review that the

Members of Congress at least in this Committee are urging you to

continue that with all deliberate speed and all the curiosity and ingenuity that you can muster. So we will work with Mr. Saxton in

developing the language.

Mr. Faleomavaega?

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am a little

deaf. I was trying to figure, did you say nurd center or nerve center?

I do want to echo the sentiments expressed by Mr. Saxton about

the consolidation and whatever efforts that NOAA is trying to do

here.

I do have some questions to Mr. Gudes. I think I have introduced

a bill about something to do with tsunami warning and wanted to

see if NOAA—I know there is a tsunami center that has been built

or constructed in Hawaii. But it provides only with reference to

coastal States. But leaving out the ancillary areas—and I wanted

to ask Mr. Gudes if this was intentional or is this an oversight?

Can we be a little more inclusive in terms of the programs out of

the tsunami program that is currently being implemented?

Mr. GUDES. Congressman Faleomavaega, we run 2 tsunami

warning centers. They are actually under the weather service part

of NOAA. One is in Palmer, Alaska, and one is in I think Eva

Beach in Hawaii. I believe that we do, in fact, present an interVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:38 Jan 29, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 79659.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
21

national structure and provide tsunami warnings to the islands of

the Pacific, just like the weather service very strongly works on

providing weather services across the Pacific, but I will get back to

you if I am incorrect on that.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I would appreciate. There has also been consideration—and here again I am pleading ignorance about the global warming research, if NOAA is actively engaged in this. You

know, my good friend from California, a distinguished Member of

Congress who happens to chair one of the Science Subcommittees,

described global warming as global baloney. And I sincerely hope

that this is not NOAA’s position in terms of the seriousness of this

phenomenon or this issue and that we will be getting accurate scientific data to support the concerns about this issue. And I wanted

to ask you if this is an ongoing program as well with NOAA.

Mr. GUDES. Absolutely, Congressman, global change and climate

research are among the most important programs run in the agency. We spend some $305 million or so on climate services and climate research in NOAA. It is an area where when people talk

about atmospheric NOAA and oceanic NOAA, you can’t make that

distinction because the oceans are the drivers of the world’s climate. And this is an area that we have been stepping up to for

some period of time. The TAO Array across the Pacific by which

we know El Nino, for example, started in the early 1980’s and it

is something that really showed the way, if you will, for what can

be done on a worldwide ocean-observing system such as the Committee is talking about.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. This is also taking sentiments expressed by

Congressman Underwood and which I am very interested in the

fact that probably the 2 deepest areas in the world, one is called

the Marianas Trench and also the Tallin Trench. And I wanted to

ask if NOAA is seriously proactive in terms of doing as much exploratory research. And I think if I am correct, and please correct

me if I am wrong, these are the 2 deepest areas of the ocean floor.

It is in the Marianas near Guam and one near my district in

Tonga.

Mr. GUDES. On the civil side, I believe this is correct. We don’t

have submersibles that would go that deep. I think the Japanese

do. But Ocean Exploration and National Undersea Research Program are programs that are not just within the US EEZ. They are

also looking at international areas. There is actually a mission

going on now in the Galapagos area off of South America taking

a look at some seafloor spreading vents, as the Chairman was talking about. And I must say that for me, I am a major advocate of

NOAA playing its role and the United States playing its role in

ocean exploration.

I was down at the Aquarius habitat, undersea habitat in the

Keys where men and women work undersea. It is part of the

NURP program we were talking about, and I am absolutely supportive of the comments that have been made here today.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. We had a joint hearing sometime last year,

and one of the things I came to understand and we got this 900-

pound gorilla, It is called the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory that

sits somewhere on the West Coast and probably have some here on

the East Coast. And a lot of times when we do the research in dealVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:38 Jan 29, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 79659.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
22

ing with the oceans, marine life, all of a sudden, it says classified.

It is security. Something of this nature. How extensive is NOAA’s

efforts to make sure that information and knowledge or data that

we get is for public information that is not going to compromise our

national security? When we talk to the Navy, they don’t say much

about it.

Mr. GUDES. Well, we wouldn’t compromise national security, but

we are an agency that works very much in an unclassified format.

If you turn to our web site, NOAA.gov, you will see how much we

try to get our information out to the public, schools and kids. We

work through ocean partnership, research, leadership and on a

day-to-day basis with the U.S. Navy. Your staff on the Committee

here came down to the Monitor Marine Sanctuary in North Carolina. Great example of U.S. Navy and NOAA working together to

recover parts of the USS Monitor which sank off of Cape Hatteras

in about 1863 or 1862, and part of the marine sanctuary. The Navy

brought in their salvage divers and a saturation environment and

really a successful effort. We do work very closely with

NAVOCEANO and Bay St. Louis, and I think it is a great example

of what can be done when Federal agencies work together.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Would you say we are not as advanced as

Japan and other nations as far as ocean exploration is concerned?

Mr. GUDES. I don’t know the answer to that. I think on the civil

side, one of the positive events that happened in the last few years

was this Commission on Ocean Exploration—President’s Commission on Ocean Exploration and taking a look at what we needed

to do. Certainly in NOAA I think it woke us up to do more, and

I think that in terms of submersibles it is probably significant that

most of the submersibles we are using were built in the 1960’s.

I was out on Pisces 4 with the University of Hawaii and went

to 1,200 feet off of Hawaii to do an exploration mission. And many

of these submersibles are 30 years old. Now they have been renovated, but the country really hasn’t been investing in technology.

The Aquarius habitat that I talked about again I think is probably

20-year-old technology and it is something we are taking a look a

look at internally within our NURP program, ocean exploration

program.

[Information submitted for the record follows:]

Question for Scott Gudes from Rep. Faleomavaega

Question: Would you say we are not as advanced as Japan and other nations as

far as ocean exploration is concerned?

Answer: While the U.S. is not as advanced as other nations, we are making good

progress in ocean exploration-related efforts.

‘‘Discovering Earth’s Final Frontier: A U.S. Strategy for Ocean Exploration,’’ written in 2000 by the President’s Panel on Ocean Exploration, described some of the

issues facing ocean exploration. The Report described some of the challenges facing

U.S. ocean exploration efforts compared to other nations. For example: • Japan, France, and Russia have submersibles that are newer than U.S. vessels

and which can also dive to deeper depths.

• Japan is the only nation with a full ocean-depth remotely operated vehicle

(ROV) that can reach the deepest depths of the ocean.

• Our premier deep diving submersible, Alvin was built in 1964. Although it is

regularly overhauled and completely safe, its maximum depth of 4,500 meters

is shallower than that of several foreign submersibles.

• Ireland has mapped a larger percentage of its Exclusive Economic Zone than

the U.S.

23

The U.S. has been making progress in improving its ocean exploration efforts. In

fiscal year 2001, we initiated a new program in Ocean Exploration in NOAA with

an appropriation of $4 million. The Administration requested an increase in fiscal

year 2002 to $14 million, which Congress enacted. The Office of Ocean Exploration,

in cooperation with its many partners, has been working to address the recommendations of the President’s Panel. For example, the Panel recommended that

‘‘The Program should include a coordinated effort to improve and promote ocean

science education.’’ One product that addresses this goal is the Ocean Exploration

website, which presently attracts over 1.5 million hits per month from people of all

backgrounds. The Office also develops lesson plans that teachers use in the classroom to promote a better understanding and appreciation of ocean science. The Office of Ocean Exploration is working presently with other partners from across government, industry, and academia to address the other recommendations found in

‘‘Discovering Earth’s Final Frontier: A U.S. Strategy for Ocean Exploration.’’

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Do you think we need to increase the authorization for deep sea research like the submersibles? If you’re

saying we are 30 years behind, that means we are really behind.

I remember the Cook Islands government had to solicit the expertise of a Norwegian research group to find out that there is

approximately a little over $200 billion worth of manganese nodules in the Cook Islands and not one American firm or no corporate

ingenuity—I thought we were a high tech country, but apparently

we are not. And I am wanting to know that maybe we are not focusing properly on these kinds of priorities that we ought to look

at.

Mr. GUDES. The House Ocean Caucus has been very much an advocate of ocean research and education. I agree with all your comments. Every time one of these missions comes back, going back to

the Chairman’s comment, they find some new life form, some type

of squid, coral or octopus we have not seen. When we go to other

planets looking for life forms, on this planet we know there is a lot

of life forms that we haven’t found yet and I think it is exciting.

Our budget actually provides for in NOAA about 30 some odd million, what I would call this package of programs, which is

submersibles. I would include in that the ocean exploration line

which is 14 million, the national undersea research line, which is

13; The JASON which is about getting out work—Bob Ballard’s

work and others. The vents program off of the West Coast; the sustainable seas expeditions, which is under our ocean service with

Sylvia Earle and National Geographic. You put all that package together, they are doing similar type of work, which is about exploration and discovery.

The last point I would like to make, what I said about education,

part and parcel, big part of these programs is getting this information out to schools, out to kids, getting the youth of the country to

take part in these missions and to follow these missions and create

explorers of the future. I think that is absolutely critical.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your patience, and Mr. Gudes, for your patience. I say here we are and we

are ready to go to Mars and we can’t even get under the depths

of the ocean to find out what is down there. It is amazing.

Mr. GILCHREST. I would agree with your comments and I think

all of us on this Committee would prefer to quadruple the budget

to NOAA for all its responsibilities.

24

Mr. Gudes, I would like to ask just 2 brief questions. One is in

this bottom-up review, is NOAA evaluating the value of manned

submersibles versus unmanned submersibles and where—likely I

would guess you are going to come up with some combination of

the 2, but where the emphasis will be on over the next number of

years?

Mr. GUDES. To answer your question, no, I can say that as the

Chairman—and there wasn’t—that that wasn’t addressed in the

bottom-up review.

Mr. GILCHREST. Is that an ongoing question for NOAA?

Mr. GUDES. Yes. I had the great opportunity to sit with Dr. Robert Ballard and Dr. Sylvia Earle who are on two sides of the spectrum to solicit a debate on this issue a few years ago and I think

it is sort of a bit like our space program. You can do a lot of things

remotely very well. ROVs, AUVs are a big part of the equation, but

there is something about capturing the imagination and getting

people actually into the issue of discovery that happens with

submersibles. It is really quite exciting. And, you know, we run a

space station in NOAA along with the University of North Carolina-Wilmington. It is called the Aquarius. It is 3 miles off of Key

Largo. It is in 60-something feet and people live and work.

Going back to the Congressman, we have NASA astronauts doing

missions this summer to train in the Aquarius to really get the

first space station work. And on next Monday I will be at the Kennedy Space Center taking part in the Link symposium to talk

about NASA and NOAA working together using space exploration

and robotics and technology and ocean exploration. So it is an exciting area, and I do not know where it comes up. I think both are

part of the equation.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Would the Chairman yield? I just wanted to

ask Mr. Gudes, am I correct to presume that the Navy does have

the most modern up-to-date submersibles now in service?

Mr. GUDES. I would like to get back to you on that with one of

our experts like Craig McLean, the head of Ocean Exploration, to

give you a better assessment. There was a national undersea civil

side assessment done a few years ago which I can provide the Subcommittee. I don’t know in the unclassified world in the Navy how

that compares.

[Information submitted for the record follows:]

Question for Scott Gudes from Rep. Faleomavaega

Question: Mr. Gudes, am I correct to presume that the Navy does have the most

modern up-to-date submersibles now in service?

Answer:

• The Navy operates submersibles that can be used for undersea research. These

include the nuclear powered NR–1 and the USS Dolphin (AGSS 555) a dieselelectric submarine. Their maximum operating depths are 2,375 feet (724 meters)

and 3,000 feet (915 meters), respectively. These submersibles are used for both

civilian and military research activities.

• The deepest diving research submersible owned by the Navy, and operated by

WHOI, is the DSV Alvin that has a depth capability of 14,765 feet (4,500 meters) and conducts approximately 100 dives/year on mostly non-military related

projects. Studies are underway to extend the Alvin depth to 21,325 feet (6,500

meters). The Navy retired the DSV Turtle and DSV Sea Cliff several years ago.

• While these submersibles were originally launched decades ago, they have been

overhauled and retrofitted many times with up-to-date equipment and devices

25

for conducting undersea operations. France, Japan, and Russia operate

submersibles that have a deeper depth capability than Alvin, and their deep sea

research capability, other than for depth, approaches that of the Navy deep submergence vehicles.

Mr. GILCHREST. The other question—and I appreciate that response and certainly, given the budget constraints, the most effective use of those dollars for manned and unmanned submersibles,

maybe the unmanned would be the data gathered for better understanding of the currents and the various aspects of the ecosystems

for the purpose of understanding the fisheries and the pure exploration for the wonder and the vision that humans can supply would

be the manned submersibles.

The other question, Scott, is a plan for the U.S. portion of global

ocean observing system. We would like to move forward with that,

but we really don’t want to move forward unattached to your ideas.

So if you could give us some idea when your plan would be vetted

so that we can incorporate it into our legislation, we would really

appreciate it.

Mr. GUDES. I think that is a good tie-together, Mr. Chairman, as

you talk about the ecosystems. It isn’t just about the submersible

work we talked about. It is about the overall ocean observing systems, really understanding the whole ecosystem. And I probably

should have focused on that as much as I did about actually looking at ROVs and submersibles. We are in the process of generating—both looking at coastal-observing systems, ocean-observing

systems, global ocean-observing systems. It is an interagency effort.

A draft of the plan should be out by mid-June and is scheduled,

I am told, to be by the end of this summer. It will lay out a preliminary architecture of what a system would look like. I believe this

goes back to the science advisor to provide to—I know a bit about

it. It is really talking about the things we need to measure, the

type of measurements we need to get both in the coastal regime as

well as the deep oceans, and there is a difference in the products

and uses and the type of technologies and some sense of how dense

those observing systems should be. And that is, I think, an excellent effort.

Mr. GILCHREST. And then synthesize all the data.

Mr. GUDES. Data is in all of our programs, I think. Whether we

are talking satellite systems, NOAA has come to realize you got to

do end-to-end planning, that getting that data, understanding how

you are going to use it and store it and get it out to the users is

absolutely critical, has to be on the front end.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you very much. Did you have a follow-up

question, Mr. Underwood?

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just on the

question—on the issue raised by the Chairman on the global oceanobserving system implementation plan and the integrated coastal

ocean observation system. Of course, it goes without saying that I

am hoping that the islands of the Pacific is given adequate attention in that effort.

Mr. GUDES. Absolutely, Congressman. Absolutely, we take our

responsibilities in our programs in the Western Pacific very seriously.

26

I should have mentioned earlier, this is normally looked upon as

a Science Committee issue, but I talk sometimes here about satellites. We are actually going to be activating and moving one of

our geostationary satellites to the west to cover Guam and Japan

because there are some issues with Japanese GMS satellite coverage. It is what we call our GOES-9 satellite, and we are going

to be working with the Japanese building a GOES receiver in Alaska. So we will actually be moving to help them provide that coverage, because usually in Guam and Japan and East Asia, it would

be the Japanese user system.

But we absolutely do take that very seriously in all of our programs.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. And when you do then, maybe you can talk to

the house into adapting its BlackBerry system so I can access the

BlackBerry in Guam, too, because, you know, I feel like the whole

House is discriminating against me, because everyone else can access their BlackBerry in their home district.

I have just one more point—

Mr. GILCHREST. We don’t have a BlackBerry system on the Eastern Shore of Maryland. My BlackBerry has never been turned on.

It sits on my desk upstairs, and it doesn’t work over there on the

Eastern Shore.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Just last on the—this is out of scope of the

Subcommittee, but on the National Weather Service, on the planes

going into hurricanes, you know, it is my sincere hope that those

planes go into typhoons once in a while. We get 60 to 70 storms

per year on the other side of the dateline, and almost all of them

pass in or around Guam, the Northern Marianas or the Federated

States.

Mr. GUDES. Yes, sir. We are always looking at—actually, that is

one of the things I do in my job as Deputy Under Secretary, fleet

allocation; and I can tell you there are always more demands on

the two P-3s we have in G-4 than—but I was here when you were

talking to the Admiral, and I understand that issue very well of the

Western Pacific, and I will continue to look into that, sir.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Thank you.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Underwood.

And we will probably put into one of these undersea research

programs a line about how to use that research and expiration to

eliminate the brown tree snake in Guam. There must be some connection there with that.

Mr. GUDES. Drown them.

Mr. GILCHREST. OK. Encourage those typhoons to hit Guam more

often. You can strike that for the record. Whoever is typing that

down, though, it is not a good thing to say.

We appreciate your ongoing effort, Mr. Gudes, and we look forward to working with you over the next couple of weeks, and perhaps when the draft is ready, we can take a look at it and model

some of our language after your draft plans. But we look forward

to working with you.

Mr. GUDES. Us, too, Mr. Chairman. And let me just thank this

Subcommittee again for your leadership and your interest in our

programs; and on behalf of the country, we and—all of our NOAA

employees, we really do appreciate it. Thank you.

27

Mr. GILCHREST. Good luck. Thank you.

We will now go back to the—we are on Panel III: Mr. Mitchell

Ellis, Chief of the Branch, Wildlife Resources, National Wildlife

Refuge System; and Mr. Frank Dokter, President, Walter’s Camp,

Inc.

Mr. Ellis, is anybody here from BLM that would like to sit up

at the table?

Mr. ELLIS. Yes, there is actually.

Mr. GILCHREST. Gentlemen, thank you. We appreciate you traveling across the continent to visit with us today.

STATEMENT OF MITCHELL R. ELLIS, CHIEF OF THE BRANCH

OF WILDLIFE RESOURCES, NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE

SYSTEM, U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

Mr. GILCHREST. And, Mr. Ellis, welcome. You begin.

Mr. ELLIS. Thank you. Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I am Mitchell Ellis, Chief of the Branch of Wildlife Resources for the National Wildlife Refuge System. I appreciate the

opportunity to testify today in support of H.R. 3937, which will revoke a small portion of Public Land Order 3442—let me start over.

I appreciate the opportunity to testify today in support of

H.R. 3937, which will revoke a small portion of the original Public

Land Order 3442, dated August 21, 1964. This Public Land Order

withdrew approximately 16,600 acres of public domain lands along

the Colorado River in California and Arizona for the creation of

Cibola National Wildlife Refuge. However, the withdrawal erroneously included a small area of approximately 140 acres in Imperial County at the southern boundary of the California portion of

the refuge.

Prior to 1964, this property fell under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management, and beginning in 1962, the BLM had

issued a permit for public recreation concession on the lands now

in question. Because the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the

BLM failed to effectively address this mistake in legal descriptions

on the ground, the BLM continued to renew the original permit,

and the recreational concession has continued unbroken to the

present time, although the BLM lease did expire in April of this

year.

The concession and location are commonly known as Walter’s

Camp, and it consists of a recreational vehicle park, a small marina, a store; and the BLM estimates that Walter’s Camp receives

about 11,000 visitors per year.

The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act requires that all uses of refuge lands be compatible with the purposes

for which the refuge was established. Section 4 (a) of the Act and

section 204 (j) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act

both prohibit the Secretary of the Interior from revoking withdrawals of land from National Wildlife Refuges. For this reason,

congressional action is required to remove these lands from the

refuge system.

Given the fact that the concession is not directly related to wildlife, it is highly unlikely that the service could find it to be compatible with refuge purposes. Absent legislative action, we would most

likely be forced to evict the concessionary should these lands reVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:38 Jan 29, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 79659.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
28

main in the refuge. The Department has been exploring alternatives to address this issue since the error was discovered in

1999.

Since the inclusion of these lands in the Public Land Order was

certainly a mistake, due to the prior existence of a concession, we

believe the most equitable solution is removal of the lands from the

refuge. There are no threatened or endangered species inhabiting

the 140 acres, and the area in question is, at best, marginal wildlife habitat. Removal of the 140 acres of land from the refuge would

allow for the continuation of the recreational concession, while still

affording more than adequate protection for the nearest significant

wildlife habitat feature, Three Fingers Lake.

We believe that withdrawal of these lands will benefit all parties

involved—the concessionary, the service, the BLM and, ultimately,

the public. For this reason, we support the bill and urge prompt

action on enactment of H.R. 3937.

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. I would be happy

to answer any questions you might have.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Ellis.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ellis follows:]

Statement of Mitch Ellis, Chief, Branch of Wildlife Resources, National

Wildlife Refuge System, Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the

Interior

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Mitch Ellis, Chief of the

Branch of Wildlife Resources, National Wildlife Refuge System. I appreciate the opportunity to testify today in support of H.R. 3937, which will revoke a small portion

of Public Land Order 3442, dated August 21, 1964. This Public Land Order withdrew approximately 16,600 acres of public domain lands along the Colorado River

in California and Arizona for the Cibola National Wildlife Refuge. The withdrawal

erroneously included a small area of approximately 140 acres in Imperial County

at the southern boundary of the California portion of refuge.

Prior to 1964, this property fell under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and, beginning in 1962, the BLM issued a permit for a public recreation concession on the lands now in question. Because neither the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service (Service) nor the BLM recognized the mistake in legal descriptions

on the ground, the BLM continued to renew the original permit and the recreational

concession use has continued, unbroken, to the present time, although the BLM

lease did expire in April 2002. The concession and location are commonly know as

‘‘Walter’s Camp,’’ which consists of a recreational vehicle park, a small marina, and

a store, and the BLM estimates that Walter’s Camp receives 11,000 visitors per

year.

The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act (Act) requires that all

uses of refuge lands be compatible with the purpose for which the refuge was established. Section 4(a) of the Act and section 204(j) of the Federal Land Policy and

Management Act both prohibit the Secretary of the Interior from revoking withdrawals of land within National Wildlife Refuges. For this reason, congressional action is required to remove these lands from the Refuge System.

Given the fact that the concession is not directly related to wildlife, it is highly

unlikely that the Service could find it to be compatible with refuge purposes. Absent

legislative action, we will most likely be forced to evict the concessionaire should

these lands remain in the refuge. The Department has been exploring alternatives

to addressing this issue since the error was discovered in 1999.

Since the inclusion of these lands in the Public Land Order was certainly a mistake, due to the prior existence of the concession, we believe the most equitable solution is removal of the lands from the refuge. There are no listed species inhabiting

the 140 acres and the area in question is, at best, marginal wildlife habitat. Removal of the 140 acres of land from the refuge would free-up the area necessary

for the continuation of the recreational concession, while still affording more than

adequate protection for the nearest significant wildlife habitat feature, Three Fingers Lake.

29

We believe that withdrawal of these lands will benefit all parties involved—the

concessionaire, the Service, the BLM and, ultimately, the public. For this reason,

we support the bill and urge prompt action on enactment of H.R.3937.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement and I am happy to answer any questions you might have.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Dokter.

STATEMENT OF FRANK DOKTER, PRESIDENT,

WALTERS CAMP, INC.

Mr. DOKTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I am kind of awed

by all of this. This is my first time in Washington, D.C. so I am

just going to make this statement, and I will probably just read it,

because I am a little bit nervous.

Mr. GILCHREST. That is fine, Mr. Dokter. You are doing very well

for your first time here.

Mr. DOKTER. Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee,

thank you for holding this hearing on this very important matter

and please allow me to introduce myself. My name is Frank

Dokter, and I represent Walter’s Camp. It is a small mom-and-pop

campground and RV park, owned and operated by my family, and

we are located on the California side of the Colorado River. And although Walter’s Camp has been here since the early 1920’s and operated as a business since 1962, my family began operating this

business in 1978; and we operate on a BLM concession which we

have—I left a copy for you for your review.

I would just kind of like to tell you a little bit about what we

do. We offer a safe and fun atmosphere for people of all ages, and

each is welcome to enjoy hunting and fishing and camping and

rock-hounding and bird-watching, canoeing and boating. It is all on

the Colorado River. It is an excellent place to raise kids, and we

do a lot of fun stuff, and all of that while we enjoy some of the most

beautiful scenery God ever created. It is just a beautiful place.

We provide all services, including backup for our local law enforcement; and when needed, the U.S. Marines are kind enough to

provide us with the personnel and the helicopter for evacuation of

injured persons or something like that. And it is really great to be

able to work with the Marines on those situations. And due to our

remote location, we are the only source of food and fuel and drink

40 miles upriver, about 40 miles downriver. So we are kind of out

in the toolies.

Although it has been hard work to bring Walter’s Camp where

it is today, my family and I have had many rewards, including

watching many small children grow up into fine young people. And

I have seen the satisfaction in families that can—the satisfaction

that can only be gained from experiencing some of America’s great

outdoors and wild places. And the personal relationships that I

have developed over the years are invaluable. I have more

godchildren than I have children, and these families have kind of

grown up with me over the years that I have been there.

Walter’s Camp was first authorized in 1962, but in 1964, the

Public Land Order that—3442 that we discussed for the Cibola

Wildlife Refuge, that happened. It was like 16,000 acres. And the

problem is that when they did that, they accidentally included this

Walter’s Camp property into that refuge, and the area was not recVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:38 Jan 29, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 79659.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
30

ognized at the time by the BLM or the Fish and Wildlife Service;

and therefore, the BLM continued to renew my concession contract.

And this land was thought to have been withdrawn from the

refuge many years ago and the former refuge manager even placed

a fence around the refuge boundary and physically excluded Walter’s Camp. However, the problem only came to light in recent

months, and now the BLM cannot continue to renew my permit to

operate until the matter is corrected.

Both the BLM and the Fish and Wildlife Service agree that Walter’s Camp was erroneously included in the refuge, but say a legislative fix is needed to enable my family to continue renewing our

permit and to remain in business.

Several months ago, I asked help from Congressman Duncan

Hunter, and after hearing about my situation, he agreed to pass—

help pass this bill correcting Public Land Order 3442 by withdrawing the 140 acres from Walter’s Camp—withdrawing the 140

acres of Walter’s Camp from the public Cibola National Wildlife

Refuge.

And from what I understand, the Fish and Wildlife Service and

BLM says that Walter’s Camp has little or no habitat or wildlife

value, and I would like to call to your attention, there are 78 private residences that border this property, and there are development plans for a 60 to 80 more of the same such residences, and

some of those are now in the construction stages in Imperial Valley. They are right next to Walter’s Camp.

And, Mr. Chairman, we provide many services that will be lost

without the passage of H.R. 3937. Local residents and government

agencies need these services, and all agree that we do not harm

any of the wildlife habitat, and we are great stewards of this land

that we operate on; and we would like to continue doing so—or

doing what we have done for many, many years, and that is introducing many families to outdoor life.

And now I would like to take this opportunity to thank Congressman Duncan Hunter for all of his time and energy and work. I appreciate him introducing this bill that we all need so very much.

And finally, Mr. Chairman, thank you for having this hearing,

and thanks to the Committee for all of your attention. And I hope

that when all is said and done, you can all come and go fishing or

hunting with me.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Dokter follows:]

Statement of Frank Dokter, President, Walter’s Camp, Inc.

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for holding this hearing

on this important matter. Please allow me to introduce myself. My name is Frank

Dokter. I represent Walter’s Camp, Inc., a small ‘‘mom and pop’’ campground and

r.v. park owned and operated by my family on the California side of the Colorado

River. Although Walter’s Camp has been here since the early 1920’s, and operated

as a business since 1962, my family began operating the business in 1978. I operate

on B.L.M. concession contract CAAZCA 6637, which I have included a copy of for

your review.

We offer a safe and fun atmosphere for people of all ages. All are welcome to enjoy

fishing, hunting, water-skiing, rock-hounding, hiking, birdwatching, canoeing and

boating, all while enjoying some of the most beautiful scenery God ever created. We

provide all services, including back-up for law enforcement. When needed, the U.S.

Marines are kind enough to provide rescue personnel and a helicopter. Due to our

remote location, we are the only source of fuel, food, and drink for more than 40

miles up river or down river.

31

Although it has been hard work to bring Walter’s Camp to where it is today, my

family and I have had many rewards, including watching many small children grow

into fine young people over the years. I have seen the satisfaction in families that

can only be gained from experiencing some of America’s great wild places. The personal relationships I have developed over the years have been invaluable. Believe

it or not, I now have more God children than I have children.

Walter’s Camp was first authorized in 1962, but in 1964 Public Land Order 3442

established the Cibola National Wildlife Refuge by withdrawing more than 16,000

acres along the Colorado River. The problem is that when they did that they accidentally included Walter’s Camp in the Refuge. The error was not recognized at that

time by the B.L.M. or the Fish and Wildlife Service, and therefore, the B.L.M. continued to renew my concession contract. This land was thought to have been withdrawn from the Refuge many years ago, and the former refuge manager even placed

a fence around the refuge boundary about 13 years ago, physically excluding Walter’s Camp from the Refuge.

However, the problem only came to light in recent months, and now the B.L.M.

cannot continue to renew my permit to operate until the matter is corrected. Both

the B.L.M. and Fish and Wildlife Service agree that Walter’s Camp was erroneously

included in the Refuge, but say a legislative fix is needed to enable my family to

continue renewing our permit and remain in business.

Several months ago, I asked for helping from my Congressman, Duncan Hunter.

After hearing about my situation, he agreed to help pass a bill, correcting Public

Land Order 3442 by withdrawing the 140.32 acre Walter’s’ Camp from the Cibola

National Wildlife Refuge.

From what I understand, the Fish and Wildlife Service and B.L.M. says that Walter’s Camp has little or no habitat or wildlife value. There are 78 private residences

bordering this property with development plans for 60 to 80 more, some of which

are now in construction stages. Mr. Chairman, we provide many services that will

be lost without passage of H.R. 3937. Local residents and government agencies need

these services, and all agree we do not harm any wildlife or habitat. We are great

stewards of what land we operate on, and would like to continue doing what we

have done for many years, introducing many families to outdoor life.

I would like to take this time to thank Congressman Duncan Hunter for all his

time, energy and work. I appreciate him introducing this bill that we all need very

much.

Finally, thank you again for having this hearing Mr. Chairman, and thanks to

the Committee members for your attention. I hope when all is said and done with

this, you can all find time to come visit Walter’s Camp when you get a chance.

[An attachment to Mr. Dokter’s statement follows:]

32

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Dokter. We will take a ride on

the canoe down the Colorado River and buy a sandwich at your

spot.

Mr. DOKTER. Great.

Mr. GILCHREST. The gentleman from BLM, is there any comment

you would like to make while you are here?

What is your name, sir?

Mr. LARSON. Lee Larson, I am here in our Washington office,

working concessions and permits for BLM.

We just wanted to say that we are in support of the bill, and we

have had a good relationship with Mr. Dokter; and that is why we

33

have had a long-term lease with him and look forward to—if passage of this, we would be able to give him another long-term lease.

Mr. GILCHREST. Was there any specific reason that when the

fence was put up, the fence excluded—the fence around the wildlife

refuge excluded this camp, Mr. Dokter’s camp?

Mr. ELLIS. Well, Mr. Chairman, the record is a little fuzzy on

that matter. There were some—

Mr. GILCHREST. Was it an understanding that that was actually

BLM land as opposed to part of the Fish and Wildlife Refuge?

Mr. ELLIS. For all of those years, it was actually thought that the

boundary was north of Walter’s Camp, and so that was probably

why the fence was put there.

Mr. GILCHREST. And the need for the legislation is that Fish and

Wildlife can’t issue the type of permit on their land that BLM can

issue on their land? That is the fundamental issue here?

Mr. ELLIS. That is correct. Our regulations wouldn’t allow us to

find that type of a concession compatible with the purposes for that

particular—

Mr. GILCHREST. OK.

Mr. ELLIS. Our compatibility standards are not only based

against the mission of the refuge system, but also the individual

purposes for each refuge. And so looking at Cibola’s purpose statement—it is strictly for wildlife—it would be very difficult to pass

a compatibility test; and we feel it would be best all around to simply transfer the land back.

Mr. GILCHREST. How long has this area been—there is about

17,000 aches in the wildlife refuge?

Mr. ELLIS. The refuge was established in 1964.

Mr. GILCHREST. And prior to that, was it BLM land?

Mr. ELLIS. Yes, it was, although portions of the area along the

Colorado were withdrawn for reclamation purposes by the Bureau

of Reclamation for the Water Storage Act in that area.

Mr. GILCHREST. I see. How much land in that vicinity is BLM

land?

Mr. ELLIS. I would have to defer to my colleague here.

Mr. LARSON. Just the acreages that we had the leases on, that

is all that really came back to BLM. Basically, the Bureau of Reclamation gave up their leases that were already occupied, to us,

and we have been managing those leases—

Mr. GILCHREST. So other than Mr. Dokter’s camp—or Walter’s

Camp, BLM doesn’t have—or own much other land out there?

Mr. LARSON. No, not in that area. Basically, anything that—

through a withdraw program that the Bureau of Land Management has, if the purpose of the withdrawal is no longer needed,

then through the withdrawal program, that comes back to BLM.

Mr. GILCHREST. I see.

Mr. LARSON. Comes back to the public domain.

Mr. GILCHREST. Who takes title of the property once the transfer

takes place?

Mr. ELLIS. Title of the property, of course, will remain in the

United States of America, but will be administered by the Bureau

of Land Management.

Mr. GILCHREST. I see. Thank you very much.

Mr. Underwood.

34

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You asked most of

the questions I was going to ask, but—

Mr. GILCHREST. I am sorry.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. That is OK.

Mr. Dokter, how long has your family been there?

Mr. DOKTER. We have been there since early 1978.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Early 1978?

Mr. DOKTER. Yes, sir.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. And how many people visit the camp on an annual basis?

Mr. DOKTER. Well, I guess it depends on who you are talking to,

but we will go with 11- to 20,000. It is kind of hard to say, because

sometimes we have some of the schools, Boy Scouts of America and

that, that come in in busloads. So it is kind of hard to count heads.

You know, they put little counters out there on the road sometimes, and so, you know, I wouldn’t butt heads with anybody as to

the total amount, but I would say anywhere from 11- to 30,000 a

year.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. And how much would you say you have—your

family has invested in terms of the area? What have you—

Mr. DOKTER. Actually, I have invested my lifetime there.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Well, I know.

Mr. DOKTER. Probably upwards of a million dollars.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Maybe this is a question, Mr. Larson, for BLM.

Is this kind of an unusual arrangement, or is this fairly typical for

BLM?

Mr. LARSON. Well, I wouldn’t want to say it was unusual. We

don’t want to say that we made too many errors with the survey,

things of legal descriptions, but—so unusual. But basically this bill

has an opportunity to make it right and get it back the way it

ought to be and the way it should have been.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. And I certainly appreciate that sentiment.

Now, if the bill passes, the property is still owned by the government. Do you undergo periodic reviews as to how this property is

going to be utilized? Is Mr. Dokter going to have—you know, he

has invested his lifetime in it. Is he just going to use that as leverage?

Mr. LARSON. Yes. What happens is that when a lease is up, a

process begins at least a year ahead of that time period to renew

that lease and to see if the conditions have changed and see if

there is expansion needed or whatever, those kinds of things; and

the need for these things are continually addressed through our

land use planning process.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. And how long is the current lease for?

Mr. LARSON. The current one that they had was 20 years, and

we have just been giving 1-year extensions until this gets resolved.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. So it is a 1-year lease?

Mr. LARSON. It is on a 1-year lease, yes.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. And what are the conditions on it? What would

Mr. Dokter have to do to lose that lease?

Mr. LARSON. To lose it?

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Yeah.

Mr. LARSON. Basically, there is a—

35

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Not that he would do anything to lose it. I am

just asking in a hypothetical way.

Mr. LARSON. As a contract, there are a number of stipulations

that he has to conform to that have to do with taking care of the

land and public health and safety, those kinds of things.

If some of those kinds of trust things are broken, then we would

have to seriously consider whether or not we want to renew that

and let it go to someone else. And usually the flagrant situations

involve something to do with hazards. It is safety and public health

and those kinds of things.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Ellis, the access road to the camp area,

does that go through Fish and Wildlife or BLM, and is there any

thought as to how that would be altered by this legislation?

Mr. ELLIS. The access road, it will continue to go across refuge

property; however, we don’t anticipate that being a problem. We actually use that access road to reach the Three Fingers area, which

is part of the refuge. We have regulations in place that prohibit offroading, and have been fairly successful in enforcing those. So I

don’t think the road would be a problem.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Do people—Mr. Dokter, do people like to go offroading in the area?

Mr. DOKTER. Yes, sir. Actually, you know, because there is a declining portion of our country that you can do that anymore, there

is a big call for it, yes, there is. But not in that area. There are

specific roads that you can take, and they are pretty much outlined

by either BLM or Fish and Wildlife Service. And for the most part,

people that do come out there conform to those things. They are

not—you know, we don’t get a whole lot of renegades out there.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. I see. Now, about what is the total acreage

that the camp currently utilizes?

Mr. DOKTER. We occupy about 34 acres right now. And there is

a need for expansion.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. So the bill calls for 140 acres. Is that correct?

Am I correct in that?

Mr. LARSON. That is correct.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. So that is to cover anticipated growth?

Mr. DOKTER. We haven’t discussed that with the Office of the

BLM yet. That would be a portion of it that we would like to use.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. I see. OK. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Dokter, Mr.

Ellis and Mr. Larson—especially Mr. Dokter.

Well, good luck with your careers with the Federal Government,

Mr. Ellis and Mr. Larson—

Mr. LARSON. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to make one thing

clear. Before, when you asked me about, did we have any other

lands around there, I was speaking of the withdrawals of a reclamation. But you probably already know that BLM does have a lot

of land in that area. Just so you know, it is not like an isolated

parcel; it would be joined by BLM land.

Mr. GILCHREST. And BLM land in that area surrounds the

refuge?

Mr. LARSON. That’s correct, yes. All around the area there is—

36

Mr. GILCHREST. Do you have an estimate as to the number of

acres in that—

Mr. LARSON. No, I don’t, but it is something we can get for you

if you need it.

Mr. GILCHREST. A thousand, 500?

Mr. LARSON. Probably more.

Mr. GILCHREST. More. So Walter’s Camp is not about to be

marginalized by Wal-Marts?

Mr. LARSON. No, absolutely not.

Mr. GILCHREST. Great. All right.

Thank you all, gentlemen, very much. And I think Mr. Hunter

is going to take Mr. Dokter out for dinner tonight, I would hope.

Mr. DOKTER. Boy. I would like that.

Actually, I did enjoy lunch with Mr. Hunter, and I appreciate

that.

Mr. GILCHREST. Oh, that is great. Enjoy your stay in Washington, sir. You did a nice job in your testimony.

Thank you all very much. The hearing is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 3:23 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

Æ